Emperor v.

Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912 )22MLJ 333

ISSUE: Whether the accused can be held guilty for the murder of Rajalakshmi?

RULE: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. It is
to be observed that the section does not require that the offender should intend to kill any
particular person. It is enough if he causes the death of any one by doing an act with the
intention of causing death to any one, whether the person intended to be killed or anyone
else.

FACTS:

• The accused was a clerk in the Settlement Office at Chicacole and had got the life of
Appala Narasimhulu insured in two Insurance companies for the sum of Rs. 4,000/-
and had paid the premium himself.
• The premium for the second insurance was due and would elapse on 12th February
1910 and Appala Narasimhulu had been pressurizing him for means of subsistence.
• The accused then asked her to meet him at his brother in law’s house.
• The accused with the intention of killing Appala Narasimhulu gave him some
sweetmeat (halva) in which a poison containing arsenic and mercury in soluble form
had been mixed.
• Appala Narasimhulu ate a portion of the sweetmeat, and threw the rest away.
• Rajalaksmi, an 8 or 9 year old girl, was the niece of the accused and daughter of the
accused’s brother-in-law. She had picked up some of the sweetmeat from the garbage,
without the knowledge of the poison and had consumed it and had also given some
of it to another child who also consumed it.
• Both the children who had eaten the halva had died because of the poison in it. Appala
Narasimhulu, though he had severely been affected by the poison, he had recovered.
• The sessions court convicted him for an attempted murder of Appala Narasimhulu but
acquitted him for the murder of Rajalakshmi.
• The accused appealed against his conviction and his sentence when the court
confirmed it and enhanced his sentence to transportation for life.
 • The present appeal is by the Government against his acquittal on the charge of
murdering Rajalakshmi.

HELD:

• The High Court set aside the order of the sessions judge acquitting the accused of
the charge of murder and convicted him of an offence under Section 302, Indian
Penal Code.
• The Court sentenced the accused under Section 303, Indian Penal Code, to
transportation for life.
 Govindaswamy v. State Of Kerala (2016) 16 SCC 295

ISSUE:

• Whether the appellant can be charged with murder of the defendant?

RULE:

• The victim had jumped off the train causing severe injuries to her face which resulted
in breaking the chain of causation and led to her death.

FACTS:

• The appellant, accused, assaulted the defendant, a 23 year old women when she was
travelling from Ernakulam to Shornur.
• The injury was caused to her head which left her dazzled when she was alone in the
ladies compartment of a moving train.
• The defendant was then allegedly pushed from the train or that she had jumped from
it smashing the left side of her face.
• The accused then, himself jumped from the train and raped the already grievously
hurt defendant.
• The defendant was eventually found in a badly injured condition lying by the side of
the tracks, who ultimately succumbed to her injuries and complications arising due to
the rape, in the hospital.
• Some people who were travelling in the general compartment of the train had heard
noises of a woman crying and wailing and so wanted to pull the chain of the train.
They were dissuaded to do the same by a middle aged man who said that the girl had
jumped from the train.
• The post mortem reports had concluded that injuries to her head were made by
banding her head 4-5 times to a flat surface, holding her hair from back with the right
hand which made her dazed and insensitive but it was not enough to cause her death.
• The trail court and the high court found the defendant guilty of Rape as well as
Murder.
• The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:
• The Supreme Court while retaining the rape charge, reversed the charge of murder
stating that since it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
had pushed the victim off the train, he could not be held responsible for the injuries
sustained by the victim as a result of the fall, which had contributed to her death.
• The key issue of causation was whether the defendant jumped off the train or had
she been pushed?
• The court relied on the testimony of the two witnesses, who had stated that they had
not pulled the emergency chain since a “middle-aged man” had told them that the
victim had jumped off the moving train, thus holding that the appellant was not
liable.
 Regina v. Robert Konrad Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411

ISSUE:

• Whether the wound inflicted by the appellant was the cause of death or her refusing
to the blood transfusion acted as a Novus actus interveniens and so broke the chain of
causation?

RULE:

• If at the time of death the original wound is still the operating cause and a substantial
cause, then the death can properly be said to be the result of the wound, albeit that
some other cause of death is also operating.

FACTS:

• The victim was a young girl aged 18. On 3rd May 1974, during the late afternoon, the
appellant came into her house and asked her for sexual intercourse. When the girl
refused, the appellant attacked her with a knife.
• This caused her four serious wounds, one piercing her lung. The girl collapsed
• An ambulance took her to the hospital around 7:30 pm.
• By 8:30 pm she had been examined by the surgical team and the doctors had to do a
surgery but before that, they would have to do a blood transfusion.
• To this, the girl insisted that she will not have a blood transfusion as it would go
against her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. She was told that she would die
without a transfusion but decided to do it anyway.
• The counsel for the appellant argued that the chain of causation had been broken when
the girl denied the blood transfusion and so the appellant was not responsible for the
death.
• On the other hand, the counsel for the girl argued that it was a case of manslaughter
by reason of diminished responsibility.
• On 17th October 1974, the appellant had been convicted for manslaughter on the
ground of diminished responsibility, wounding the girl, indecently assaulting her, and
assaulting other women.
• The Teesside Crown court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
 • The appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal against his conviction due to
manslaughter.

HELD:

• The court held in favor of the respondent saying that the stab wound was the cause
of death and not her refusal for blood transfusion.
• The court also said that the one who inflicts an injury to the other which results in
their death, cannot excuse themselves by pleading that the victim could have avoided
the death by taking better medical care.
• The perpetrator must take the victim as he finds them, that is, with the religious
beliefs.
 R v. Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38

ISSUE: Whether the victim’s act in self injecting the injection was an intervening act such
as to break the chain of causation?

RULE: The criminal law generally assumes the existence of free will. The law recognizes
certain exceptions, in the case of the young, those who for any reason are not fully responsible
for their actions, and the vulnerable, and it acknowledges situations of duress and necessity,
as also of deception and mistake. But, generally speaking, informed adults of sound mind are
treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions how they will act, and none
of the exceptions is relied on as possibly applicable in this case.

FACTS:

• The appellant lived in a hostel in which Marco Bosque and Andrew Cody, who shared
a room, also lived.
• On 10th September, 1996 the appellant visited their room where Bosque was drinking
with Cody.
• According to Cody, Bosque told the appellant that he wanted “a bit to make him
sleep” and the appellant told Bosque to take care that he did not go to sleep
permanently.
• The appellant prepared a dose of heroin for him and gave a syringe ready for injection.
• Bosque injected himself and returned the empty syringe after which the appellant left.
• Bosque then appeared to stop breathing. An ambulance was called and he was taken
to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
• The cause of death was inhalation of gastric contents while acutely intoxicated by
opiates and alcohol.

HELD:

• The court held in favor of the appellant stating that the act of self-injecting was an
intervening act.
• It said that the heroin was self-administered, not jointly administered. The appellant
did not administer the drug. Nor, for reasons already given, did the appellant cause
the drug to be administered to or taken by the deceased.